|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 16, 2020 21:49:09 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now Also these new routings means a new interchange at Waddon marsh, i'm not sure where they would terminate, maybe the loop the 289 and 455 use to serve? The S4 could have gone to Croydon essentially imo and upgrade to 10.2m One thing i will say is now passenger behaviour will now change, considering 407 is only between sutton and croydon, X26 will now see a higher passenger usage. I believe passengers would be far more inclined to use the x26 is quicker in that sense and even wait for the bus to turn up. Yeah, the 455 was quite long, and I have to agree with you about the 166, it is way longer than the 455, but does travel in rural areas, so there are less traffic hotspots. The Waddon Marsh destination would be where the old 289/455 loop was, there is just a bus lane there doing absolutely nothing  . The S4, I would say could not have upgraded to 10.2m buses, I'd say 9.7m at most, but parked cars in Carshalton can be an issue. The X26 will definitely get a passenger increase, especially in school times, perhaps a frequency increase will be required for this? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 22:00:42 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now Also these new routings means a new interchange at Waddon marsh, i'm not sure where they would terminate, maybe the loop the 289 and 455 use to serve? The S4 could have gone to Croydon essentially imo and upgrade to 10.2m One thing i will say is now passenger behaviour will now change, considering 407 is only between sutton and croydon, X26 will now see a higher passenger usage. I believe passengers would be far more inclined to use the x26 is quicker in that sense and even wait for the bus to turn up. Yeah, the 455 was quite long (but I do have some lovely memories of me and my mum going to Ikea after primary school with Arriva's long gone DWL's), and I have to agree with you about the 166, it is way longer than the 455, but does travel in rural areas, so there are less traffic hotspots. The Waddon Marsh destination would be where the old 289/455 loop was, there is just a bus lane there doing absolutely nothing . The S4, I would say could not have upgraded to 10.2m buses, I'd say 9.7m at most, but parked cars in Carshalton can be an issue. The X26 will definitely get a passenger increase, especially in school times, perhaps a frequency increase will be required for this? Why will the X26 get a passenger increase? There are only two stops between Croydon and Sutton anyway. The 407 will remain unchanged between Sutton and Croydon, same route and frequency. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 22:04:19 GMT
I agree that the 312/455 make sense although I'm not sure about the need to reroute the 166. I think the 407 makes sense although it will leave a rather short route between Croydon and Sutton and I'd rather extend the 403 back to Sutton where it used to go years ago. Your 198 suggestion is interesting although some people would lose the link to Mayday/CU Hospital. I think the 443 is a better way to serve Old Town than the previously suggested 433 extension (potential for confusing those numbers!) and it'll be interesting to see how that new link works out, the downside of course is that it misses out the High Street. I'm not sure about the 439 other than replacing part of the rerouted 434 it doesn't offer anything that can't be done with a change of bus at Purley. I can't see too much wrong with the rest, the 80 to the prisons was probably a bit excessive and the S2 should be more in line with demand. I agree that the 289 should be double decked, maybe with spare LTs like the 313? Excellent idea about the 289 getting decked - possibly when 319 conversion comes the HVs could move to the 160 and the Ts move to the 289 Yes the 289 has been crying out for double deckers for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 22:53:02 GMT
I agree that the 312/455 make sense although I'm not sure about the need to reroute the 166. I think the 407 makes sense although it will leave a rather short route between Croydon and Sutton and I'd rather extend the 403 back to Sutton where it used to go years ago. Your 198 suggestion is interesting although some people would lose the link to Mayday/CU Hospital. I think the 443 is a better way to serve Old Town than the previously suggested 433 extension (potential for confusing those numbers!) and it'll be interesting to see how that new link works out, the downside of course is that it misses out the High Street. I'm not sure about the 439 other than replacing part of the rerouted 434 it doesn't offer anything that can't be done with a change of bus at Purley. I can't see too much wrong with the rest, the 80 to the prisons was probably a bit excessive and the S2 should be more in line with demand. I agree that the 289 should be double decked, maybe with spare LTs like the 313? Excellent idea about the 289 getting decked - possibly when 319 conversion comes the HVs could move to the 160 and the Ts move to the 289 I've been asking for the 289 to be decked for over 10 years now, probably ever since I joined the forum along with the 355 & P4 (two of the three can be done without issue) and yet we are still here with all three routes (ignoring the couple of deckers temporarily allocated to the 355) as they were so I don't think it will happen anytime soon especially for the 289 given no mention in the consultation and the recentish frequency increase it gained. Even during covid, the P4 continues to still get big loadings but Dulwich Village is the issue that stops it. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 16, 2020 23:53:16 GMT
Moreover on the new route 443, I really like the fact it gives Croydon Old Town a bus route which connects to South Croydon and beyond. It will be interesting to see where TfL put the bus stops for the Old Town section of this route.
|
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Oct 17, 2020 1:00:22 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now No way the 166 would get 3bph to Epsom Hospital, it was a real struggle to maintain the existing service pattern last time round it was up for tender. I do agree that the route will be too long now though - It's long enough as it is. It received a duff new timetable about this time two years ago which really dampened peak time performance, made my journeys home from school much longer and less enjoyable. So hopefully if this does go ahead it will receive a timetable akin to that pre October 2018 where the running time was much more lenient. 166 was really the perfect route back then even with its ENLs which I regarded as the best E200s in London.
No sadness on the 455 going on my part. Many bad memories of Abellio's awful performance reflective of BC's rather poor period of service which resulted in the loss of the 152, 157 and 455 all at once, three routes they never handled well at all. Some of those Nimbuses really struggled getting up Pampisford Road and made very strange smells.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 17, 2020 1:54:02 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now No way the 166 would get 3bph to Epsom Hospital, it was a real struggle to maintain the existing service pattern last time round it was up for tender. I do agree that the route will be too long now though - It's long enough as it is. It received a duff new timetable about this time two years ago which really dampened peak time performance, made my journeys home from school much longer and less enjoyable. So hopefully if this does go ahead it will receive a timetable akin to that pre October 2018 where the running time was much more lenient. 166 was really the perfect route back then even with its ENLs which I regarded as the best E200s in London.
No sadness on the 455 going on my part. Many bad memories of Abellio's awful performance reflective of BC's rather poor period of service which resulted in the loss of the 152, 157 and 455 all at once, three routes they never handled well at all. Some of those Nimbuses really struggled getting up Pampisford Road and made very strange smells.
Best rides on the 166 for me were pre ENL when it was allocated DWL's along with PDL & ADL appearances - would even take one of the ADL's over a ENL despite how beat up they were  |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 17, 2020 6:14:33 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now No way the 166 would get 3bph to Epsom Hospital, it was a real struggle to maintain the existing service pattern last time round it was up for tender. I do agree that the route will be too long now though - It's long enough as it is. It received a duff new timetable about this time two years ago which really dampened peak time performance, made my journeys home from school much longer and less enjoyable. So hopefully if this does go ahead it will receive a timetable akin to that pre October 2018 where the running time was much more lenient. 166 was really the perfect route back then even with its ENLs which I regarded as the best E200s in London.
No sadness on the 455 going on my part. Many bad memories of Abellio's awful performance reflective of BC's rather poor period of service which resulted in the loss of the 152, 157 and 455 all at once, three routes they never handled well at all. Some of those Nimbuses really struggled getting up Pampisford Road and made very strange smells.
I think 2bph to Epsom could be justified (and 4bph to Chipstead Valley) but it won't happen because of Surrey CC funding. I don't really see the need to reroute the 166, the 405 should be adequate along Pampisford Road and as suggested previously the new 439 could go that way. And what is the point of the deviation via South Croydon Station, although the stop which seems to get little usage is a fair walk from the station. Meanwhile other stops along the main road are missed and this is just the sort of time consuming detour that will irratate passengers going further afield. Another stop could be added on the 403 in St Peters Road or Aberdeen Road. I don't think the 455 will be missed, it's a rather cumbersome circuitous route. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 17, 2020 7:21:51 GMT
Excellent idea about the 289 getting decked - possibly when 319 conversion comes the HVs could move to the 160 and the Ts move to the 289 I've been asking for the 289 to be decked for over 10 years now, probably ever since I joined the forum along with the 355 & P4 (two of the three can be done without issue) and yet we are still here with all three routes (ignoring the couple of deckers temporarily allocated to the 355) as they were so I don't think it will happen anytime soon especially for the 289 given no mention in the consultation and the recentish frequency increase it gained. Even during covid, the P4 continues to still get big loadings but Dulwich Village is the issue that stops it. Another route that could d*mn well do with them is the 143 and it was definitely the busiest route through East Finchley throughout Lockdown according to the family, starting to wonder if it might just be cheaper to convert the 143 to double Deckers and get rid of the 143D & 643. |
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 17, 2020 11:51:31 GMT
No sadness on the 455 going on my part. Many bad memories of Abellio's awful performance reflective of BC's rather poor period of service which resulted in the loss of the 152, 157 and 455 all at once, three routes they never handled well at all. Some of those Nimbuses really struggled getting up Pampisford Road and made very strange smells. Were those Caetano's that bad? I never really rode them that much so I couldn't really tell, but I saw them struggling from time to time on Warham Road, making some weird noises. However, BC have improved a lot since the loss of the 152, 157 and 455, especially with those fires on the 152 and 157. I can't fault their service on the 109 (except for the people that ride it, they are a real annoyance), and ever since the 407 was converted to DD's it has been much better, especially since those terrible E200's left (although they looked quite smart when they initially came). |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 17, 2020 12:48:09 GMT
No way the 166 would get 3bph to Epsom Hospital, it was a real struggle to maintain the existing service pattern last time round it was up for tender. I do agree that the route will be too long now though - It's long enough as it is. It received a duff new timetable about this time two years ago which really dampened peak time performance, made my journeys home from school much longer and less enjoyable. So hopefully if this does go ahead it will receive a timetable akin to that pre October 2018 where the running time was much more lenient. 166 was really the perfect route back then even with its ENLs which I regarded as the best E200s in London.
No sadness on the 455 going on my part. Many bad memories of Abellio's awful performance reflective of BC's rather poor period of service which resulted in the loss of the 152, 157 and 455 all at once, three routes they never handled well at all. Some of those Nimbuses really struggled getting up Pampisford Road and made very strange smells.
I think 2bph to Epsom could be justified (and 4bph to Chipstead Valley) but it won't happen because of Surrey CC funding. I don't really see the need to reroute the 166, the 405 should be adequate along Pampisford Road and as suggested previously the new 439 could go that way. And what is the point of the deviation via South Croydon Station, although the stop which seems to get little usage is a fair walk from the station. Meanwhile other stops along the main road are missed and this is just the sort of time consuming detour that will irratate passengers going further afield. Another stop could be added on the 403 in St Peters Road or Aberdeen Road. I don't think the 455 will be missed, it's a rather cumbersome circuitous route. The 405 only gets as far as Park Street so the link through to West Croydon would be lost. I think the proposed level of service along Brighton Road is sufficient: x8 min on the 466, x10 min on the 60 and x12 min on the 312 looks plenty. It doesn't seem unreasonable to maintain the current level on Pampisford Road in that context. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 17, 2020 13:07:34 GMT
I think 2bph to Epsom could be justified (and 4bph to Chipstead Valley) but it won't happen because of Surrey CC funding. I don't really see the need to reroute the 166, the 405 should be adequate along Pampisford Road and as suggested previously the new 439 could go that way. And what is the point of the deviation via South Croydon Station, although the stop which seems to get little usage is a fair walk from the station. Meanwhile other stops along the main road are missed and this is just the sort of time consuming detour that will irratate passengers going further afield. Another stop could be added on the 403 in St Peters Road or Aberdeen Road. I don't think the 455 will be missed, it's a rather cumbersome circuitous route. The 405 only gets as far as Park Street so the link through to West Croydon would be lost. I think the proposed level of service along Brighton Road is sufficient: x8 min on the 466, x10 min on the 60 and x12 min on the 312 looks plenty. It doesn't seem unreasonable to maintain the current level on Pampisford Road in that context. True but 412 users lost their link to West Croydon. I'm thinking more about 166 users who are likely to be less than impressed with the revised routing and if Brighton Road is over bussed reduce the 466, the x8 minute frequency is a tad excessive. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 17, 2020 13:29:41 GMT
The 405 only gets as far as Park Street so the link through to West Croydon would be lost. I think the proposed level of service along Brighton Road is sufficient: x8 min on the 466, x10 min on the 60 and x12 min on the 312 looks plenty. It doesn't seem unreasonable to maintain the current level on Pampisford Road in that context. True but 412 users lost their link to West Croydon. I'm thinking more about 166 users who are likely to be less than impressed with the revised routing and if Brighton Road is over bussed reduce the 466, the x8 minute frequency is a tad excessive. There must be demand for two routes down Pamisford Road, as there are 2 extra SDO vehicles, plus additional COVID extra working between Purley and West Croydon. Maybe TfL have looked at journey patterns and too many journies would be broken if the 439 was used instead of 166. It is not as though they would have tgeopportunity to change to an additional service to continue there journey either. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 17, 2020 13:53:34 GMT
True but 412 users lost their link to West Croydon. I'm thinking more about 166 users who are likely to be less than impressed with the revised routing and if Brighton Road is over bussed reduce the 466, the x8 minute frequency is a tad excessive. There must be demand for two routes down Pamisford Road, as there are 2 extra SDO vehicles, plus additional COVID extra working between Purley and West Croydon. Maybe TfL have looked at journey patterns and too many journies would be broken if the 439 was used instead of 166. It is not as though they would have tgeopportunity to change to an additional service to continue there journey either. I've never seen anything to justify two routes along Pampisford Road, it's only busy at school times. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 17, 2020 13:54:51 GMT
There must be demand for two routes down Pamisford Road, as there are 2 extra SDO vehicles, plus additional COVID extra working between Purley and West Croydon. Maybe TfL have looked at journey patterns and too many journies would be broken if the 439 was used instead of 166. It is not as though they would have tgeopportunity to change to an additional service to continue there journey either. I've never seen anything to justify two routes along Pampisford Road, it's only busy at school times. Do you have access to TfLs usage and ticketing data? |
|
. The S4, I would say could not have upgraded to 10.2m buses, I'd say 9.7m at most, but parked cars in Carshalton can be an issue. The X26 will definitely get a passenger increase, especially in school times, perhaps a frequency increase will be required for this? 
